Many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr this week calling for the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional or statutory objections, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe instead raised Barr’s Catholic faith in a completely unwarranted and unfounded tweet. The response to the reference was total silence. Not a single professor at Harvard or elsewhere chastised the use of a person’s religion in such commentary. This is not the first profane or prejudiced statement by Tribe.
Category: Politics
Alan Dershowitz just filed a whale of a lawsuit against CNN, though it could end up beached in short order under controlling case law. The Harvard Law professor emeritus is demanding $300,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from CNN for misrepresenting his legal arguments in the Trump impeachment trial. In fairness to Dershowitz, the coverage of the trial by CNN was dreadful with intentionally and consistently slanted coverage of the evidence, standards, and arguments. However, the objections raised by Dershowitz are likely to be treated as part of the peril for high-profile figures operating in the public domain. In other words, you can complain about the weather but you cannot sue the storm. Continue reading “Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action”
There was an awkward moment this morning on Fox when President Donald Trump announced that he would have a regular appearance on Fox and Friends every week at this time. That came as obvious news to the hosts who repeatedly told the President that there is no such understanding. The exchange, however, raises a legal question of whether such a regular show with the President would run afoul of federal laws requiring equal time for political candidates. The answer is likely no but it is not clear if Joe Biden would relish a regular segment on Fox since he has largely avoided such interviews. Continue reading “Trump’s Weekly Fox Show? It Could Present Some Interesting Political and Legal Issues”
For four years, I have written about the alarming loss of neutrality and objectivity in journalism — a trend that is reflected by many polls showing that the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting. While I have regularly criticized President Donald Trump, I have also objected to unrelentingly biased reporting as well as embarrassingly soft coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden. Now, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.”
Continue reading “Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the anti-racism demonstrations from the NFL displays to corporate campaigns to academic confessions. What is most striking about these campaigns is how little they are likely to impact opinions on racism. Indeed, the NFL displays were not only booed by fans but denounced by figures like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick as meaningless propaganda. Most people are unwilling to discuss racism honestly. Booing is a form of anonymous speech and many of those individuals would not want to speak publicly about countervailing views of racial justice or the role of the NFL in such causes. Unless we can have that honest (and mutually tolerant) discussion, few minds will be changed in these campaigns. That requires a real interest in discussing different views of racial justice and its underlying issues for social reform, not just repeating affirmations or offering confessions. Otherwise, many are tuning out these demonstrations. There is clearly a view of many that corporations “doth protest too much” and mean too little in terms of real change in attitudes on racism.
Here is the column:
Several GOP leaders are calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and take legal action against Netflix for its promotion of the “Cuties” film. The film has been denounced for its “sexualization of children.” I have seen the clip of the most controversial scene of young girls dancing which I found deeply disturbing and offensive. However, there is no criminal act alleged of child abuse. What is left is a strong and widely shared revulsion with the film, but that should not be an invitation for governmental action. The threat to free speech of such action is considerable, including the return to a long and detestable period of film censorship in the this country.
Continue reading “No, The Justice Department Should Not Investigate Netflix’s “Cuties””
Facebook is under fire this week after it was discovered that the company has allowed Rose City Antifa, a violent group associated with riots for many years, to maintain a Facebook page despite the company’s controversial program to take down certain sites. As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I would not have the page taken down on free speech grounds. My greatest fear is not Antifa (which I have criticized for years) but the growing censorship of the Internet. While I recently testified about Antifa, and specifically Rose City Antifa, as part of a violent anti-free speech movement, I have opposed declaring them terrorist organizations and believe that their speech should be protected. While Facebook is a private company not subject to the First Amendment’s limits, it should adhere to free speech values on the Internet.
Continue reading “Facebook Under Fire For Keeping Antifa Page While Eliminating Far-Right Groups”
Please forgive a departure from our usual discussions but I wanted to share an interesting controversy in the area of fashion and apparel. A new campaign to “unveil historical erasure and resist capitalism” is under fire. Such campaigns are now commonplace on campuses but this is a campaign to end capitalism by Lululemon, a publicly traded brand worth billions and in the business of selling such things as leggings for $120 apiece. The campaign brought to mind the quote attributed to Lenin that “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.” In this case, Lululemon will sell you the rope in various colors plus some “hotty hot” styles for $60.
I have previously written (here and here) about the need to break the duopoly of power in this country by creating greater opportunity for other parties and candidates. Every presidential election, the voters are told that they have to chose between two candidates who garner little support in their own right. It is the continual replay of “choosing between evils” option for voters. Now we have a new disgrace: a majority of polled voters in swing states view both Donald Trump and Joe Biden as mentally unfit but are told that they must chose between them.
Continue reading “Poll: Most Voters In Swing States View Both Trump and Biden As Mentally Unfit”
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Many European nations like Germany have struggled for years to suppress speech only to fuel movements like neo-Nazis who operate underground or evade limits. Now France has given another example of why speech regulations often fail. The effort to ban the book “Men, I hate them” by Pauline Harmange has backfired with increased sales from defiant citizens.
Continue reading ““Men, I Hate Them”: French Government Seeks To Ban Book”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved yesterday to take over the representation in the defamation suit brought by author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused President Donald Trump of raping her. I strongly disagree with the use of the Justice Department in such circumstances. However, the court may have little choice to grant the motion. This is a case where the legal answer is not the right answer.
Most human beings were disgusted by the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, in Portland. University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis is not among them. Loomis defended the killing by Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa member who appears to have stalked Danielson before gunning him down. Loomis insisted that any problem in gunning down right-wing counterprotesters was tactical not moral. Continue reading ““I See Nothing Wrong With It”: Rhode Island Professor Defends Murder Of Right-Wing Protester In Portland”
For years, I have criticized those who have called for increased censorship on the Internet, including regulation of political speech by companies like Facebook and Twitter. There is a legitimate debate over the continued use of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by these companies when they are engaged in such censorship (and alleged viewpoint bias). However, President Donald Trump’s call for Twitter to take down a parody of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wrong on a number of levels. It would only fuel the erosion of free speech on the Internet in curtailing political commentary. Continue reading “No, Twitter Should Not Take Down The McConnell Parody”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a major reaffirmation of congressional authority on Friday when it ruled Friday, 7-2 that the House has legal standing to use the courts to compel McGahn to appear in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. I testified repeatedly in Congress in support of the McGahn subpoena (including in the Trump impeachment hearing) and said that I believed that the White House was not just wrong on the law but would ultimately fail in this effort. I have been a long advocate of congressional standing as an academic, columnist, and a litigator, including my prior representation of the United States House of Representatives in the Obamacare litigation (where we prevailed on standing for the House). I disagreed with an earlier decision against the House. I am obviously gratified by the result in this case. Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Rejects Key Challenge Of President Trump To McGahn Subpoena”
I have previously written, as a long supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about my concern over how the venerable group has changed under its current leadership, including a departure from its long robust defense of free speech. Recently, the ACLU has abandoned its famed neutrality and has not supported some on the right while supporting those on the left. Now, the ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw in Kentucky has targeted Transylvania University for admitting Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of Lincoln Memorial. (Crankshaw identifies as an ACLU staffer on social media) Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media have continued to attack him. Yet, it is far more alarming to see an ACLU official rallying people against a young man whose chief offense appears to be that he is publicly (and unapologetically) conservative and pro-life.